An Analysis of Saturated Conditions in Hydrogen Peroxide Decontamination Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses theoretical aspects of saturated vapor-liquid equilibrium for a hydrogen peroxide-water system at temperatures between 16°C and 30°C and humidities between 20% relative humidity to 65% relative humidity, common in pharmaceutical isolator decontamination applications. A discrepancy is pointed out between two competing sets of empirical relations published in the literature that are used to calculate saturated parameters. It is shown how the two published sets can result in four combinations of equations. The four sets of equations were compared to existing published data as well as new data from experiments conducted in this study, and it is shown that one set of relations consistently provided the best match to the experimental data. This set came from a hybrid combination of the previously published equations. This has practical implications for hydrogen peroxide sensors that rely on saturated theory for calibration. In addition, new empirical relations aimed at simplifying the calculation of relevant parameters such as hydrogen peroxide concentration, mole fraction of hydrogen peroxide in the condensed liquid, and relative humidity are presented. The concept of relative saturation is discussed and a new procedure for calculating this parameter during a decontamination cycle is presented, incorporating the results from our experiments. Together the updated theoretical framework and simplified empirical relationships can be used to estimate in a simple, direct, and accurate manner where a decontamination cycle is operating in relation to the 100% saturation level, at which point condensation is likely to form in the isolator. This provides a repeatable and objective measure, useful for monitoring and comparing decontamination cycles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".